Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a homebuyer challenging delays and procedural deficiencies in the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA). The petitioner sought two substantive reliefs: first, a direction to MahaRERA to expeditiously pass final orders in execution/non-compliance proceedings in Complaint No. CC006000000195324, which had been reserved for orders since 21 March 2024; and second, framing of guidelines to streamline execution of MahaRERA orders, including mechanisms for mentioning matters, immediate hearings after filing execution proceedings, and expeditious disposal. The petition also sought resumption of hybrid hearings, as MahaRERA had continued virtual-only hearings post-COVID while other courts and tribunals had adopted hybrid models. The facts revealed that MahaRERA previously conducted physical hearings before the pandemic, transitioned to virtual mode during COVID-19, and continued virtual hearings even after the pandemic. The petitioner's execution application remained pending since March 2024. On 25 April 2025, the High Court directed MahaRERA to dispose of the execution applications within six weeks. The matter was subsequently heard on multiple dates, with written submissions filed by the petitioner, respondents, and RERA Practitioners Welfare Association (RPWA). The petition was closed for orders on 27 June 2025 and judgment was pronounced on 24 July 2025. The core legal issues were whether MahaRERA should be directed to dispose of execution proceedings in a time-bound manner and whether guidelines should be framed for execution and hybrid hearings. The court emphasized that access to justice is a constitutional guarantee and cannot be reduced to a mere formality. It observed that procedural fairness includes the right of parties to choose their mode of hearing, especially when both physical and virtual modalities are feasible. The court noted MahaRERA's continued insistence on a virtual-only model despite availability of both infrastructures was concerning. It referred to the statutory objective of expeditious and transparent adjudication and highlighted that tribunals must be accessible in substance, not just in form. The court also acknowledged the lack of structured mechanism for non-compliance proceedings and the need for effective execution of orders. The final operative directions on prayer (b) were not included in the extracted text, but the reasoning strongly favored hybrid hearings and guidelines to give effect to the Act.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Access to Justice - Article 226 Constitution of India, 1950 - Hybrid Hearings - MahaRERA continued virtual-only hearings post-COVID despite availability of physical and virtual infrastructure; court observed that access to justice is a constitutional guarantee and cannot be reduced to a mere formality; procedural fairness includes the right of parties to choose their mode of hearing when both modalities are feasible. Held that tribunals must be accessible in substance, not mere form, and hybrid model aligns with statutory objectives (Paras 19-21). B) Administrative Law - Tribunal Procedure - MahaRERA Act and MahaRERA Regulations, 2017 [sections not mentioned] - Execution of Orders - Court considered lack of structured mechanism for disposal of execution/non-compliance proceedings and absence of mentioning facility, leading to delays; petitioner sought guidelines for expeditious disposal and hybrid hearings. Held that guidelines are necessary to streamline proceedings and give effect to the Act (Paras 10-15). C) Real Estate Regulation - Non-Compliance Proceedings - MahaRERA Act [sections not mentioned] - Time-Bound Disposal - Court, by order dated 25 April 2025, directed MahaRERA to dispose of petitioner's execution applications in Complaint No. CC006000000195324 within six weeks, acknowledging the matter pending since March 2024 (Paras 4-5). D) Constitutional Law - Administrative Tribunals - Article 323A Constitution of India, 1950 - Speedy Justice - Court noted administrative tribunals were established to deliver speedy, inexpensive and decentralized justice; access to justice is an important component and parties must be given opportunity of being heard (Para 22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether MahaRERA should be directed to dispose of execution/non-compliance proceedings expeditiously; whether guidelines should be framed to streamline execution and hybrid hearings before MahaRERA.
Law Points
- Access to justice is a constitutional guarantee
- procedural fairness includes right of parties to choose mode of hearing when physical and virtual modalities are feasible
- tribunals must be accessible in substance
- hybrid hearings align with statutory objective of expeditious and transparent adjudication
- execution of RERA orders must be effective and structured
